Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Climate change planning, prevention needed

According to several scientists at University of Maine and Gulf of Maine Research Institute, there’s more where these surprise developments came from. Changes in climatological conditions are expected to continue to affect commercial fisheries as species follow their preferred temperature ranges north or change the timing of their seasonal characteristics or migrations.

'Gasland' sequel accuses industry of corrupting government

Josh Fox galvanized the U.S. anti-fracking movement with his incendiary 2010 documentary “Gasland.” Now he’s back with a sequel — and this time, he’s targeting an audience of just one.

“We want the president to watch the movie, and we want him to meet with the people who are in it,” says Fox, whose “Gasland Part II” makes its HBO debut Monday.

He contends President Barack Obama’s professed support of drilling and fracking for natural gas ignores the environmental and public health toll of the drilling boom: “It looks like he’s really sincere and earnest in his desire to take on climate change, but he’s got the completely wrong information and thus the completely wrong plan.”

Global food supply under threat

Wells are drying up and underwater tables falling so fast in the Middle East and parts of India, China and the US that food supplies are seriously threatened, one of the world's leading resource analysts has warned.

In a major new essay Lester Brown, head of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, claims that 18 countries, together containing half the world's people, are now overpumping their underground water tables to the point – known as "peak water" – where they are not replenishing and where harvests are getting smaller each year.

Summer bummer for your Fourth of July?

The Fourth of July in the United States means backyard barbecues, beach outings and fireworks displays for millions of Americans. But thanks to climate change, some of your favorite activities face an uncertain future.

Temperatures are rising, drought and wildfire risks are growing and coastal areas face the threat of devastating storm surges. Some of your favorite foods and beverages even face threats due to water shortages and greater losses to U.S. bee populations.

Trapping carbon dioxide underground: can we do it?

In a policy address last week, President Barack Obama made the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States a key priority in the nation's fight against climate change. Now, a newly released geological report points to a promising way to cut down on the amount of harmful carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere: inject and store it inside rocks deep underground.

World's largest offshore windfarm opens in Thames estuary

With enough capacity to power two-thirds of the homes in Kent, the set of 175 turbines rising out of the Thames estuary officially became the largest offshore windfarm in the world on Thursday.

David Cameron was on hand to cut the ribbon on the London Array, a massive renewable energy project, in a move that industry sources hoped would herald renewed enthusiasm from the government for renewable power after the animosity to windfarms on the Tory backbenches.

Comments

Trapping CO2 underground, as presnted by Denise Chow on LiveScience, is not a sustainable activity. Technically it may seem like a solution but it really isn't helpful.

In fact, burning fossil fuels is not sustainable because eventually future generations will not be able to continue the practice. So the burning of fossil fuels needs to be reduced.

In addition to the fact that burning fossil fuels is not sustainable, there are many other impacts from the extraction, transport, processing and ultimate burning of fossil fuels, even sweet natural gas, that accummulate (are not sustainable).

A current generation may be able to get a short-term benefit from activities that are not sustainable, but those activities create negative consequences for future generations. The global economy cannot be expected to sustanably grow as long as so much of its activity is simply not sustaianble. It is as simple as that.

Haven't Josh Fox's particular claims about fracking (eg. that it ''causes cancer'' and ''earthquakes'', and that it ''contaminates water''), as expouded in his documentary ''Gasland'', been severely criticized and called into question by the testimony of the very community he was focusing on, as well as the EPA and the scientific community itself? Has he responded to the points raised by his critics? I would be very interested in reading his response.

They didn't have earthquakes before fracking. Many of the chemicals they use are known carcinogens (they keep the formulas secret partially for that reason) and there have been many recent news articles one of many (Business News of Dallas) about contaminated water. Perhaps you should google your key words and see what you find. Where did you hear these false claims? Why did you believe them?

I doubt Josh Fox has responded to his critics, it is a waste of time. The new data releases have proved him correct. Much of this data was hidden before his documentary.

Of particular interest is the bit at the end in which the lady notes that prior to fracking in the region, methane concentrations in the water were very low. To be very clear, it is possible for methane to enter groundwater naturally, and end up in water systems as a result. That has happened before prior to fracking. However, the argument that because it has happened before without fracking, the more recent occurences which are more frequent near fracking sites and where groundwater contamination prior to fracking was low cannot be due to fracking is a straight forward fallacy.

Re earthquakes:

According to the USGS:

"USGS statistically analyzed the recent earthquake rate changes and found that they do not seem to be due to typical, random fluctuations in natural seismicity rates. Significant changes in both the background rate of events and earthquake triggers needed to have occurred in order to explain the increases in seismicity, which is not typically observed when modeling natural earthquakes.

The analysis suggests that a likely contributing factor to the increase in earthquakes is triggering by wastewater injected into deep geologic formations. This phenomenon is known as injection-induced seismicity, which has been documented for nearly half a century, with new cases identified recently in Arkansas, Ohio, Texas and Colorado. A recent publication by the USGS suggests that a magnitude 5.0 foreshock to the 2011 Prague, Okla., earthquake was human-induced by fluid injection; that earthquake may have then triggered the mainshock and its aftershocks. OGS studies also indicate that some of the earthquakes in Oklahoma are due to fluid injection. The OGS and USGS continue to study the Prague earthquake sequence in relation to nearby injection activities."

It should be noted that fluid injection can only cause earthquakes where there are stress points along fault lines. The quakes relieve that stress. Therefore the very high rate of earthquakes is probably due to facking, but after an unknown number of years the rate will probably fall again, possibly to below the pre-fracking level. That does not make the recent upsurge in earthquakes a good thing, but the growth in earthquake numbers is not simply pojectable into the future, even with continued fracking.

Tom, I havent followed this closely but I am pretty sure studies showed the gas was biogenic and not from fracking. This doesnt of course rule out the possibility that engineering associated with fracking hasnt created disturbanced biogenic sources. It does show more caution is needed in determining causes.

scaddenp @6, given a moderately recent discussion on Yamal, I am easilly convinced that the methane is biogenic. As you note, however, that does not mean the increased groundwater contamination is not a result of fracking. Indeed, given timing and the effect of fracking on earth quakes it seems very plausible that fracking has caused faulting which connects the biogenic methane to the ground water.

The thing which always gets me about the fracking industry's desperate attempts to claim the technology doesn't cause earthquakes (or since that has now clearly been proven false, that it doesn't cause 'major' earthquakes) is that the 'earthquake causing' may be the only 'good' thing about fracking.

Yes, fracking causes thousands of small quakes. To me it seems very likely that those small quakes in turn contribute to shaking loose larger fault lines and triggering bigger quakes. However, that's all a good thing. Sooner or later faults will slip. Fracking causes them to do so sooner... which means less energy is built up and the quakes are smaller and with fewer aftershocks than they would have been eventually. We should be studying fracking as a potential future means of 'earthquake management'.

thank you for your responses. There are a few issues to sort out here:

My source for doubting the claims made in ''Gasland'' is the documentary ''Fracknation'', by Phelim McAleer. While we may rightfully doubt whether someone who has in the past been funded by the energy industry will present us with all the relevant facts, there were enough counter-claims made in the documentary to make me think that Gasland fell severely below the mark in terms of presenting all the relevant facts as well. For example:

- the people in the town focused upon in Gasland seem to mainly be in favour of the gas company's operations when asked by McAleer (they were also furious at their town being reduced to something of a caricature in the media, and many were against the construction of a water pipeline to bring clean water to the town, given that they themselves thought it was already clean). At least some of the residents in the town straight up agreed that gas was coming out of faucets well before the company had any operations in the area. This was not mentioned in Gasland, which left the viewer with the impression that the flammable gas was being released because of fracking. When asked about this very issue by McAleer in a seminar, Fox replied that ''it's true, but it's no relevant''. I would be interested to know how he maintains that it's ''not relevant'', when indeed many people have been left with the impression that gas coming out of faucets is something new under the sun and that fracking is to blame.

- the couple, mentioned in both documentaries, who filed a lawsuit against the gas company rejected the EPA's own results for water contamination when the results showed that there was no significant contamination from fracking. The EPA released footage of the couple being presented with the results; they replied by flying off the handle, denouncing the EPA as peddlers of ''bullshit'' and hurling accusations of ''what happened to you guys?'', and (in the case of the wife) essentially threatening McAleer with physical violence. I'm not accusing the couple of deliberate lying, but there seems to be, at the very least, a problem of circular reasoning here: the couple will only accept results that conform to their opinion. I mention their emotional response only to emphasize that science doesn't work by emotion or circular reasoning, but through the testing of assumptions. In the case of contamination of water in the town, the assumptions were clearly unfounded, which undercuts a key claim relies upon by Fox.

- many farmers are in favour of fracking, due to the revenue it brings, which in turn allows them to stay in business. It also makes sense to me that farmers, whose entire livelihoods and in many cases heritage is based upon using the land (and indeed, maintaining the health of the land) would never grant permission to a company to drill under their land if there was a serious threat of contamination of ground water. This suggests to me that fracking is not significantly more dangerous than other methods of extracting natural gas when it comes to water contamination, even if, like those other methods, it still carries risks.

- Fox claimed in Gasland that a region (or city) of the US had experienced greatly elevated levels of cancer from fracking. This turned out to be flatly incorrect and contradicted by a scientific study which found no evidence of this.

Now, it's possible that Phelim McAleer, for his part, had extrapolated too much from his focus upon the particular claims made in Gasland and had sidelined cases in other localities where fracking has been shown to be a danger, but this doesn't mean that the particular claims made in Gasland about the aforementioned localities and people have been scientifically verified. This is why I asked if Fox has issued a rebuttal against his critics, since Fox was basing his claims about fracking largely upon the cases he looked at in his documentary. As for the claim that this would be ''a waste of time'': isn't this very website about rebutting the claims of climate change deniers? Would you say that this website is a waste of time? Personally, I find it to be an invaluable source of information, which, if nothing else, provides me with the scientific community's view on the matter (just as ''TalkOrigins'' provides me with the scientific community's view on evolution against creationist claims).

Furthermore, many people who are genuinely interested in getting to the truth of the matter would want Fox to tackle the claims made in Fracknation. Even if ''new data'', as you say, has ''proven him correct'', this might apply to cases other than those he looked at. If fracking poses a danger in Oklahoma, for example, this doesn't mean that it poses a danger in the places Fox focused on. Thus, a blanket condemnation of fracking seems inappropriate based upon the cases Fox focused on. Finally, if certain claims are incorrect and are disseminated by those who care about the environment, this only ends up assisting those who don't care about the environment, for the latter can then latch on to these cases to ''prove'' that ''environmentalists don't care about the truth''. We must always, without reservation, seek to uphold the highest standards of truth when making our claims. Anything less becomes a disservice to our side and a gift to the other side.

There's another, more general, point to be made. Fracking, being a method of extracting natural gas, might be dangerous but in a more round-about way than cancer, earthquakes and contamination. To the extent that fracking faciliates more extraction and the driving down of gas prices, it is of course facilating humanity's ''addiction'' to fossil fuels, and in this sense is dangerous. But this is different to the separate question of whether fracking is inherently more dangerous than other methods of natural gas extraction due to the risks it poses in terms of cancer and earthquakes. Even if it didn't do these things, it would still present a long-term threat to the environment through its system-wide impact on energy use. This is an issue that tends to be overlooked by focusing either too much on its particular dangers, or of trying to deny them. Not that these dangers should be overlooked, of course. I'm just wary of the possibility that these dangers might inadvertently serve as a distraction from a larger systemic issue. But anyway, I'm just putting my thoughts out here.

From your post I understand that you have seen an industry reply to a documentary that was nominated for an Oscar as best documentary. You claim "scientific studies" have shown something but you provide only a citation to the industry propaganda. Perhaps you can support your claims with some data besides industry propaganda?

You have been provided undisputable evidence about earthquakes. There is widespread data concerning pollution of drinking water by fracking. Your tale of cancer is different from the one on Wikkipedia, perhaps you need to cite your source so we can see if it holds water.

It seems to me that Fox has better to do than to reply to this propaganda. No-one at SkS has felt it interesting to write an article about it. It seems off topic for this site to me.

michael sweet @10, there is some truth in claims that Gasland overstates the case against fracking. For instance, of three people apparently mentioned as having methane contaminated water as a result of fracking in Weld County, Colorado, two, including Mike Markham (featured in the scene showing water from the tap being lit by a ligher), were found to have methane of biogenic origin. However, the third case the well of Aimee Ellsworth was found to contain"... a mixture of biogenic and thermogenic methane that was in part attributable to oil andgas development...". Given the standard McAleer and (apparently) Louis use for accusations of dishonesty, the failure to mention that case by either demonstrates them both to be liars. Perhaps Louis was merely ignorant.

Including the example of Sherry Vargsson (22 minutes in) featured in the video I posted above, that gives two clear examples of groundwater contamination with methane as a result of fracking operations. Further, it is quite possible that the two biogenic cases had no or limited methane in their gas prior to fracking operations. Presumably they at least claimed that to Fox (certainly Fox claims so, another apparently "not relevant" Louis neglects to mention).

Speaking of missing important details, in Fracknation McAleer says to Fox, "You have said yourself, people have lit their water long before fracking started." (2:41) To that, Fox replied, "Yes, but it is not relevant."

LuisC presents this case by stating:

"At least some of the residents in the town straight up agreed that gas was coming out of faucets well before the company had any operations in the area. This was not mentioned in Gasland, which left the viewer with the impression that the flammable gas was being released because of fracking. When asked about this very issue by McAleer in a seminar, Fox replied that ''it's true, but it's no relevant''. I would be interested to know how he maintains that it's ''not relevant'', when indeed many people have been left with the impression that gas coming out of faucets is something new under the sun and that fracking is to blame."

Check the wording. Fox was not asked about "this very issue". The example Fox mentions and agrees to comes from New York, not Colorado. McAleer had mentioned a 1976 report for Colorado but Fox does not indicate he has read it. Nor are we told why Fox thinks reports of earlier instances are not relevant. Although clearly from the video he has more to say, he is cut of once McAleer has his sound bite, and McAleer continues with his rhetorical voice over.

One thing I have noticed in watching excerpts of McAleer's video is a blanket refusal to question industry claims. Worse, when reporting on a successful campaign to prevent fracking in the Delaware basin, he reports it as a case of remote bureacrats "depriving farmers of their livelihood". Now I'll grant the decision deprived some farmer of a potential revenue stream, but McAleer is claiming that the decision will prevent the farmers from making a living - that in fact farming on their farms will not earn them a livelihood.

It is not the purpose at SkS to discuss all thngs that anyone thinks might be related to tangently to Global Warming. For example, there is no nuclear dedicated thread. I suggest you take your complaints to a forum that is dedicated to your questions.

I get the impression that you are a concern troll. You say that you are concered and then outline all the vague accusations made against Fox, without references to support your claims. Please begin to support your claims with data beyond an industry propaganda piece.

In the future I will adhere to DNFTT.

00

Moderator Response:

[JH] Luis C's comment that you are responding to has been deleted for violating two elements of the the SkS Comments Policy, i.e., no moderation complaints and no sloganeering/trolling.

I note that you have misquoted me in your reply. Specifically, I stated:

"Given the standard McAleer and (apparently) Louis use for accusations of dishonesty, the failure to mention that case by either demonstrates them both to be liars. Perhaps Louis was merely ignorant."

(Emphasis added.)

You chose to delete from the quote those sections I have bolded above, including the first clause of the sentence which clearly makes the sentence conditional. I at no point indicate that I accepted the standard of McAleer, or your apparent standard. I merely point out that those that do, including McAleer, if they are are consistent must conclude that McAleer is a liar.

In your case, it is open for you to reject McAleer's standard. You can conclude that a person can reasonably leave out information considered germain by others without thereby being a liar. But if you will not reject McAleer's standard, you (not I) brand yourself a liar for you have clearly left out germain information.

I will note that your new guise as "devil's advocate" is inconsisent with your initial sally @2 above.

00

Moderator Response:

[JH] The first of Luis C's comments that you are responding to has been deleted for violating two elements of the the SkS Comments Policy, i.e., no moderation complaints and no sloganeering/trolling.

LuisC wrote: "To the extent that fracking faciliates more extraction and the driving down of gas prices, it is of course facilating humanity's ''addiction'' to fossil fuels, and in this sense is dangerous."

In a roundabout way, this may actually turn out to be a good thing. Fracking is responsible for the fossil fuel boom in the US... which is now starting to drive down global oil prices. However, those lower prices are a problem for many countries (e.g. Russia) which can only extract oil at relatively high cost. Indeed, the fracking boom in the US itself is only possible due to high oil prices. The 'gold rush' mentality in the US may actually lead to fracking making itself temporarily uneconomical. Depending on how big the bubble and how damaging its collapse will be, the forthcoming 'fracking bust' could put the breaks on further deployment of the technology long enough for renewable alternatives to grow into the dominant energy source.

Had fracking been rolled out slowly with careful regulation and long term planning, it could have been profitable for decades. Instead, there has been a 'drill baby drill' mentality with everyone in the industry rushing to capitalize in the quickest and dirtiest ways possible. That foolishness will come back to bite them. The question then is whether the industry will be able to quickly restructure itself to a somewhat 'sustainable' (for a few decades anyway) model before renewables can move into the gap.

As to the rest, I notice you are no longer saying that fracking does not cause earthquakes. Conceding the point in the face of overwhelming evidence, or just avoiding an argument you can't win?

Luis C: Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

LuisC has seen fit to accuse me of "insinuating" that he is a liar. Given his statement @2 above, and his own insinuations when he asks, "I would be interested to know how he maintains that it's ''not relevant'', when indeed many people have been left with the impression that gas coming out of faucets is something new under the sun and that fracking is to blame" about Fox, he seems rather to precious to me. That is particularly the case given that he misrepresented Fox in the passage from which that quote came; and that (assuming, as it appears, that he has watched Fracknation) he knows that the two intances about which he "... would be interested to know why they are not relevant" are two instances where the water did not contain methane in significant quantities until after the commencement of fracking (according to the propery owners), and hence for which he therefore already knows why the preexisting methane contamination of other local wells is not relevant.

However, I made no insinuation regarding LuisC's honesty. I presented him with a conditional. Accepting the conditional, he must either accept the consequent, or deny the antecedent. His inability to understand that - in effect, his determination to affirm the consequent in no way justifies assuming that I am likewise challenged in basic logic.

What is worse, I even (twice) indicated that the conditional may not apply to Luis, and indicated a reason why it may not apply to him. He has interpreted this possible exemption as itself an insinuation of dishonesty. Apparently nothing will do for him except my stating categorically that he was ignorant and that therefore the conditional did not apply.

His proper response to the dichotomy I presented him was either to explicitly reject McAleer's standard (and therefore to withdraw his claim @2 which while moderated is still his stated position); or to plead ignorance thus escaping the dichotomy), or to acknowledge himself and McAleer a liar (by McAleer's standard). He appears to want to escape the dichotomy a fourth way, by maintaining the standard, and inconsistently, rejecting the implications of that standard for his and McAleer's honesty.

For myself, I simply reject the standard. Video documentaries are a compressed form of communication that of necessity require leaving out of vast amounts of relevant information. Which information is relevant and vital (and hence should not be left out) and which is relevant but merely adds complexity (because it does not effect the overall case, or because other relevant information rebuts it) is a judgement call. I have no opinion as to whether or not Fox successfully navigated those judgement calls without error, and still less as to whether any errors in judgement (if they exist) were deliberate (and hence represent actual dishonesty) for the simple reason that I have not seen his video.

I do have an opinion as to whether McAleer has successfully navigated those judgement calls, and as to whether any of his "errors of judgement" were deliberate. Moderation policy, however, forbids me from sharing it. (And yes, that is an insinuation.)

00

Moderator Response:

[PS] Discussion on the relative merits of science presented in popular documentaries is welcome here - provided everyone sticks to the science. Pointers to reports/papers, particularly peer-reviewed papers, in support of claims is particularly welcome.

This discussion however is being derailed by insinuations of deliberate deception which I tried to nip in the bud. I would request all commentators wanting further discussion to take a deep breath, chuck off the baggage, and concentrate on science. In particular, please refrain from personal attacks. Failure to do so by any party will result in comments being deleted.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.